There are a wide variety of surgical techniques used to repair vaginal prolapse and apical defects. There is no consensus supporting the efficacy of one technique over the others.
Surgical approaches vary. They include vaginal, abdominal and laparoscopic surgical approaches. See Richter K: Massive Eversion of the Vagina: Pathogenesis, Diagnosis and Therapy of the True Prolapse of the Vaginal Stump, Clin. Obstet Gynecol 25:897-912 (1982); Diana et al., Treatment of Vaginal Vault Prolapse with Abdominal Sacral Colpopexy Using Prolene Mesh, American Journal of Surgery, Vol. 179, (February 2000), Pps. 126-128; Winters et al., Abdominal Sacral Colpopexy and Abdominal Enterocele Repair in the Management of Vaginal Vault Prolapse, Urology 56 (Suppl 6A) (2000): 55-63; and Paraiso et al, Laparoscopic Surgery for Enterocele, Vaginal Apex Prolapse and Rectocele, Int Urogynecol J (1999), 10:223-229.
Abdominal sacral colpopexy is considered to be an especially efficacious treatment, but it has been criticized for its inability to address posterior wall defects or perineal descent problems. This can result in persistent or altered defactory issues. See Bassler et al., Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy and Anatomy and Function of the Posterior Compartment, Obstet. Gyn 2001; 97:678-683. These procedures are generally considered invasive.
Sacrospinous ligament suspensions are also popular. However, these procedures have been criticized for distorting support symmetry about the vaginal axis. This could contribute to a predisposition for future defects in the anterior compartment. See Paraiso et al., Pelvic support defects and visceral and sexual function in women treated with sacrospinous ligament suspension and pelvic reconstruction. Am J Obstet Gyn 1996; 175:1423-1431. See also, Guner et al., Transvaginal Sacrospinous Colpopexy For Marked Uterovaginal and Vault Prolapse, Inter. J. of Gynec. & Obstetrics, 74 (2001) Pps. 165-170. This fixation is believed to risk complications through damage to the pudendal neurovascular bundle and sciatic nerve. Uterosacral ligament suspension is another repair procedure, but risk of ureteral injury still exists.
PCT Publication No. WO 00/64370 (Gaston) describes a device for treating a prolapse by vaginal suspension. The device comprises an elongate, flexible, pierced material, a suture connected to the material and a suture needle joined to the suture. The device is long enough to enable posterior suspension of the vagina at the promontory (i.e. the front upper part of the sacrum). The other end of the device includes a distal portion having a width such that it can cover at least a large part of the posterior part of the vagina, a rounded cut-out with dimensions that enable it to be engaged around the base of the vagina on at least a large part of the lower half of the wall of the vagina. The suture is connected to the article so that it is offset sidewise in relation to the cut-out.
PCT Publication No. WO 00/27304 (ORY et al.) discloses a suspension device for treating prolapse and urinary incontinence. The device comprises at least one filiform suspension cord with limited elasticity and at least two anchoring parts linked to the ends of the cord.
PCT Publication No. Wo 02/078552-A1 discloses an apparatus for treating vaginal vault disorders.
Published U.S. Pat. Appl. Nos. 2003/0220538-A1 and 2003/0176762 purport to disclose surgical instruments for treating prolapse.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,112,344 and PCT Publication No. PCT/US02/32284 disclose surgical devices for female pelvic health procedures. The IVS Tunneller device is available from U.S. Surgical of Norwalk, Conn. The IVS device comprises a fixed delta wing handle, a hollow metal tube and a stylet that is placeable within the tube. The stylet has a rounded plastic tip on one end and an eyelet at the other end. The device may be used to implant a polypropylene tape for infracoccygeal sacropexy and other surgical procedures. See Farnsworth, Posterior Intravaginal Slingplasty (Infracoccygeal Sacropexy) For Severe Posthysterectony Vaginal Vault Prolapse—A Preliminary Report on Safety and Efficacy, Int. Urogynecol. J. (2002) 13:4-8; Petros, Vault Prolapse II: Restoration of Dynamic Vaginal Supports by Infracoccygeal Sacropexy, an Axial Day-Case Vaginal Procedure, Int Urogynecol J (2001) 12:296-303; and Petros, The Intravaginal Slingplasty Operation, a Minimally Invasive Technique for Cure of Urinary Incontinence in the Female, Aust. NZ J Obstet Gynaecol, (1996); 36: 4:453.
A single, rigid, hollow metal tube is associated with the IVS Tunneller device. This single tube passes through two separate regions of the patient's body with the attendant risk of cross contamination. The outer diameter of the tube is also relatively large (about 0.25 inches) with the attendant risk of tissue damage due to a large diameter needle.
The polypropylene tape supplied with the IVS Tunneller is a thin, rectangular shape, believed to be approximately 8 mm×350 mm. The thin, rectangular tape supplied with the IVS Tunneller is not believed to be extensible. Under a longitudinal force, the implant is highly resistant to elongation. It is believed that inextensible polypropylene tapes may be apt to exhibit a greater association with erosion and failure.
A recent abstract describes using a 15×14 cm implant, placed transvaginally, to repair the anterior, median perineal defect. See Mouly et al., Vaginal Reconstruction of a Complete Vaginal Prolapse: The Trans Obturator Repair, Journal of Urology, April 2003, Vol 169 (4) supplement, p 183, Abstract # V 702, AUA Apr. 26-May 1, 2003, Chicago, Ill. The abstract also discloses that wings of the mesh are inserted through the obturator holes. Another publication describes an anterior wall repair. See Salomon et al., Treatment of Anterior Vaginal Wall Prolapse with Porcine Skin Collagen Implant by the Transobturator Route: Preliminary Results; European Urology 45 (2004), 219-245. This procedure utilizes an Emmet needle to pierce the obturator foramen.